Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Defending the West

Heartiste brought this important video to our attention. It shows why MGTOW is not an option. This is why it is necessary for men to learn Game, to reproduce, and to build strong families. Civilization literally depends upon it. If you want to live a hedonist's irrelevant life for fear of a woman claiming cash and prizes, no one is going to stop you. But Man is made for more than momentary pleasure. If all you seek is pleasure, then smoke crack and crystal meth until you die. If you seek more than that, if you seek to help shore up and sustain civilization, then you have to take the risks that are inherent in doing anything worthwhile.

Marriage 2.0 is part of the plan to destroy Western civilization; it is part and parcel of the program that includes multiculturalism and mass immigration intended to do to the Native Europeans in Europe and America what was done to the Native Americans three centuries ago.

As it happens, I am both Native American and Native European. And I certainly don't wish to see the latter suffer the fate of the former, particularly since the well-being of the entire world depends upon the survival and well-being of the Native Europeans. Never forget that the future belongs to those who show up for it.

> But Man is made for more than momentary pleasure. If all you seek is pleasure, then smoke crack and crystal meth until you die. If you seek more than that, if you seek to help shore up and sustain civilization, then you have to take the risks that are inherent in doing anything worthwhile.

This was the type of message I was indicating seemed more appropriate in another thread. It does expect some "Christian values" from those who may not follow that, largely because they are also reality.

Going the hedonistic route often put front and center at game sites ends at the very least implies such hedonism. It is good to see you clearly note it is unproductive here. Doesn't this go against the Commandments of Poon though?

yeah, a lot of what is discussed on AlphaGame is sluthood, and sluts, and identifying sluts, and avoiding sluts for commitment.

But not all women are sluts. And there are women who can make good wives and mothers. You just have to find them. It's a matter of identifying, filtering, and timing. Much of it has to do with men swimming against the cultural tide in the US, refusing to offer commitment to any but the most worthy women, and, uh, well, just not giving a shit what a particular woman or women in general think of you.

But not all women are sluts. And there are women who can make good wives and mothers. You just have to find them. It's a matter of identifying, filtering, and timing.

This is true. It's also a lot of (unpaid) work, and doesn't take into account the corrupting power that society grants women. If you're going to target younger, fertile, fickle women, you would need to find an exceptionally moral and just one, and even then, who's to say she won't change given the temptations afforded by her privileged legal status and exception from responsibility?

It just seems to me that the only women that might be trusted would be the ones you knew from a rather early age, and whose families you know. Or widows. Otherwise, you're looking for maybe a woman with +5SD morals. I sincerely wish you fellas luck, but I'm not playing those odds.

The Poon Commandments describe how to handle women and what women are attracted to. Your error is in suggesting that Game is, or could or should be, a "way of life". It isn't, at least it isn't for the Christian man. Game is a set of tools to be used; a praxis to be employed. Some tools are used; some are not, some are off limits to the Christian man. It's not a philosophy or a worldview.

To the extent Roissy and other PUAs and those in the seduction community view Game as an all-encompassing worldview, I disagree. As support for the folly of Game as a worldview, one only needs to review Roosh's boredom with the endless gaming and shit testing and clowning to see that. Roosh is asking the age old question: "Is this all there is?" Hence, Game is not a philosophy or a way of life.

Have to agree with Otiswild, the overwhelming majority of women I've met are not suited for marriage and the quality minority are quickly taken. Marrying the whores that are left would just be diverting resources to their self-serving lifestyle and allowing them to "raise" (i.e. corrupt and pervert) a new wave of leftist children. It's the trap of marriage 2.0 and nothing is gained for civilization through it. If you're someone like Conscienta who's found a decent woman then by all means produce as many good children as you can to carry the banner forward. You've got my respect and unlike some other MGTOW's I'm also not chagrined to pay taxes towards providing good schools, parks, libraries and other facilities to help your kids along the path. But it's a sad truth that there just aren't anywhere near enough good women to go around (at least in this country) and while I agree that game has certainly helped myself and others get better quality women it's a statistically inescapable truth that some of us are simply going to be left without a suitable mate. And frankly death is preferable to decades of being exploited by one of the preening, self-obsessed parasites that are left.

Man up and marry those sluts! NAWALT! Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. But some of us are having too much fun. If you really want kids, there are ways to do it without getting married. And if you really want a wife, you'd be best advised to go overseas and find a foreign (non-American) woman.

Claiming "the overwhelming majority of women I've met are not suited for marriage and the quality minority are quickly taken" is just an excuse. You're looking for reasons not to try because you are afraid you'll fail.

You have to get over that fear. If you can't, you and your genes won't be a part of the future. You know what the rules of the game are, if you decide to take your balls and go home, please get your carcass out of the way sooner rather than later because you're consuming resources the rest of us are going to need.

The future ain't rosy as far as prosperity is concerned. We're not going to be able to afford a bunch of layabouts. And those of us raising daughters aren't going to tolerate a bunch of lotharios either. MGTOW and PUA might work for the moment, but they're poor long-term choices.

But it's a sad truth that there just aren't anywhere near enough good women to go around (at least in this country) and while I agree that game has certainly helped myself and others get better quality women it's a statistically inescapable truth that some of us are simply going to be left without a suitable mate.

You're not going to have better luck with a 'foreign' bride unless you move to where she comes from. I reckon it would take less than a year for such a lady to be 'infected' with the femvirus, assuming she socializes with native fems and bathes in native fem culture.

And given Dalrock's constant updates on the cooption of the church by fems, I wonder if homeschooling does more harm than good in that area? I mean, if the only sanctioned interaction between boys and girls prior to adulthood comes thru churchian events and activities, then they'll be infected with femvirus just as much as if they were left to soak in modern femculture.

Children raised without their fathers are at a huge disadvantage, and marrying a slut (or even a former slut) is an effective way to increase the chances your children will be raised primarily by a divorced woman. This does not make a good foundation for any society. Western Civ as it is today needs to change, and if it won't change it needs to end.

As a Sola Scriptura follower of Christ (will not use the term Christian as it has been 100% coopted), and a father, it is my duty to thoroughly educate my son on the treacherous ways of the female, regardless of where he goes to school or who he interacts with.

What man here hasn't said at least once "if I only knew then, what I know now"?

It takes smarts, but also you have to be lucky too. Even good women behaved much different when dating than when married. Even those who seek to be good wives are swayed in their demeanor by the power the state gives them, even if consciously unaware if it.

I have one if the better marriages in my social circle. We will soon celebrate out 10th anniversary, and many of our friends have been married a similar length of time. Let me tell you -- even in the good marriages -- every single husband is a better partner than they were before marriage, and every single wife is a worse partner than before. Every one, due jointly to our societal attitudes and the options marriage provides.

You're not going to have better luck with a 'foreign' bride unless you move to where she comes from.

I hear this a lot, but it's not what I see. Many foreign brides have a low N, which already gives them an advantage over most of US women. Many foreign brides are raised to respect men, which is almost unheard of here. Sure they are herd creatures and subject to the Oprah's and Dr. Phil's on the boob tube, but these types of influences can be countered.

As far as I can tell, the divorce ratio with foreign brides is much lower than with American brides. Sorry I don't have any stats (only anecdotal evidence), but I've never seen any stats showing otherwise either.

Still, the best case scenario for keeping your family intact is most likely going to be relocating to a saner environment.

The whole point in homeschooling is that you can instill YOUR values into your children.

It is not for you to decide for other men whether they marry or not, nor whether they 'reproduce' or not, so as to become acceptable cogs in your Libertarian money-go-round. Sorry if that dampens your career prospects and makes you insecure about your family's future. If you depended upon God instead of Game, you'd be calm and content inside, instead of constantly attempting to sway young men to your pet theories and causes.

Chosen celibacy is an excellent option for modern men, and is fully in keeping with Scripture. Though I recall that on Dalrock's blog you have equated Holy Scripture with Game (your assertion being that both equal Truth), men are not obligated to support a nation and a system which disenfranchises, criminalizes, and mocks them for their very manhood. You're also wrong that Game and Scripture are equivalent.

PUA/Game is far more enabling of hedonism than Scriptural celibacy. Convincing young men that their only two options in a hostile and matriarchal culture are Gameism and hedonism is counter to both the truth, and to their best interests. Other options exist, and those options are acceptable to the Lord that created us all. Therefore it is not for you or the Great Hartiste to command otherwise.

Just got back from taking my family to a week of Family Camp at a Christian summer camp. There were plenty of high school and college age girls on the staff who would make good mothers (and wives). Of course, it being in America, about 5% were obese and another 10% were overweight.....

You could tell that almost all of them not only were comfortable with children, but really enjoyed being around them.

That's perfectly true. And those who do care to do so have the right to look on those who can't be bothered as worthless parasites. If you aren't interested in saving the West, I have neither use nor respect for you.

It is not for you to decide for other men whether they marry or not, nor whether they 'reproduce' or not, so as to become acceptable cogs in your Libertarian money-go-round.

Of course it isn't. But it is for me to point out that you are openly dishonest. Now, either point out where I have said that Game and Scripture are "equivalent" or retract and apologize for lying about me.

>You're not going to have better luck with a 'foreign' bride unless you move to where she comes from. I reckon it would take less than a year for such a lady to be 'infected' with the femvirus, assuming she socializes with native fems and bathes in native fem culture.

And that's why I keep pointing out that marriage is a contract between a couple on one side and a community on the other, and that while there are plenty of 'good' women out there, there are no communities that can be trusted to keep up their end of the bargain.

But virtually none of you want to hear that, let alone discuss it, because the Feminine Imperative is just a subcase of the Community Imperative, and Vox et al are hamstering just as hard to keep men willing to sacrifice their well-being, safety, health, and lives so that everybody can pay less for resources, infrastructure, manufacturing, defense, and so on in exchange.

If you addressed that, you'd be obligated by your own supposed commitment to the best interests of everyone to actually Do Something About It, instead of just wringing your hands online at how awful it's all become. Because it's *your* communities that are the problem, which means it's *your* responsibility. . .but you just don't want to pay the higher costs that would result from renegotiating that contract to men's benefit.

And all y'all went off on Aquinas Dad yesterday but won't touch anything I've been saying for the same basic reason: his stuff was the low-hanging fruit that was easy to argue down, while mine is the peak of the tree that you can't.

That's why the manosphere in general and the christian right in particular won't address Vasalgel to any meaningful degree whatsoever, let alone do something about it; the Community Imperative. That's why you won't do anything about men's issues besides talk; the Community Imperative. You *like* how the zenith males are oppressed and controlled; it saves you money.

You *want* men in general and zenith males on up in particular to be limited to only a miniscule set of individuation options, so that they *have* to stay in a system of their literal exploitation in exchange for women's sexual attention, because it benefits you.

How do I know? Because of how so many of you were willing to punk Aquinas Dad yesterday but have consistently refused to address any of this on any day. It's not like this model is news to most of the manosphere's other regular commentators; you've been seeing me point it out over and over again for years now. But you won't touch it, and we all know why that is; you don't think you can argue against it and win, and you're terrified of losing because it would hurt your self-images as The Good People too much, and obligate you to start doing more and better than just talky talk talking about it all.

Your wallets like the taste of the baby boy flesh too much for you to push away from the operating table and start lifting in the moral and ethical sense.

-Once you die, you will no longer be a part of this earth regardless of whether you produced offspring or not.

- MGTOW don't owe you anything. You sound like a spoiled brat yelling miiiiiiine at someone who doesn't concede to your arbitrary rules. Newsflash...you don't get to decide who gets which resources and who doesn't.

-As far as your daughters are concerned, I'm going to guess they have a penchant for those Lotharios and you are simply projecting

-A man choosing not to get married and have a family /= being a layabout. Layabouts exist inside and outside of marriage. In fact, women are likely to become a layabout after being married.

-Who are you to tell someone else what is a good long-run strategy and what isn't? Men see everyday what happens to those who are divorceraped.

If you aren't interested in saving the West, I have neither use nor respect for you.

A man who works and pays his own way in not a parasite regardless of his disposition with Western Civ. As for me, I want what God wants. I don't know what He has determined for the Western Civ, but from where I'm standing it doesn't look good.

If it can be saved, by all means lets try to do so. But lets do it in a manner that doesn't perpetuate this anti-Christian, anti-male, perverted environment we now live in.

A man who works and pays his own way in not a parasite regardless of his disposition with Western Civ.

No, he's still a parasite. He isn't an actual drain, he's not useless, but he's a parasite. A harmless parasite is still a parasite.

Look, I have no problem at all with men running off to Thailand and marrying whatever they like and doing whatever they like. I would even encourage it, because they're obviously not going to be any use in reclaiming and rebuilding Western Civ.

If you don't care about it, that's absolutely fine. Go to Japan. Go to Thailand. Go to Africa. Live out your days as an evolutionary dead-end wherever you like. Just don't expect other men to respect you for it.

But lets do it in a manner that doesn't perpetuate this anti-Christian, anti-male, perverted environment we now live in.

That's kind of the central point. I am most certainly not telling anyone to man-up, let alone marry those sluts.

Vox et al are hamstering just as hard to keep men willing to sacrifice their well-being, safety, health, and lives so that everybody can pay less for resources, infrastructure, manufacturing, defense, and so on in exchange.

I'm doing absolutely nothing of the sort and if you genuinely believe that, you're even dumber than Aquinas Dad.

No one said they did. If men want to be useless, harmless, parasitical, evolutionary dead-ends, that's perfectly fine with me. Because, obviously, they're useless anyhow. They'll not-breed themselves out of existence soon enough.

"And those who do care to do so have the right to look on those who can't be bothered as worthless parasites."

That is straight up White Knighting champ. Parasites live on the labor of others without producing in return.

A man simply deciding not to get married or pursue undesirable women is not a parasite by virtue of that choice itself. While in fact a woman who has kids out of wedlock or frivorces her husband for cash and prizes is a parasite.

Good point about parasites. For every alpha or PUA who pays their own way, there are 20+ women with a higher N who are less suitable wives and mothers.

That is not to say her choices are the mans fault, and if 90% of alphas decided not to be a cock on the carousel, the only difference would be that the remaining alphas would nail more women. The men who pay their way still have an impact.

We already have slut-shaming. Is this an example of bachelor-shaming...?

I know plenty of homosexualists, who, despite not having children (or maybe because they don't have children) are nevertheless enormously creative and productive, and manage to avoid being 'parasites.'

You're not going to have better luck with a 'foreign' bride unless you move to where she comes from. That's not as bad as it sounds. I know a guy who works as a construction foreman 1/2 the time in the States, the other half he spends in Thailand with his Thai bride. 1/2 a US salary is enough to live like a king in Thailand. He's quite satisfied with his life.

There have been maybe a half a dozen blogposts about it across the manosphere over the past couple of years. At just a bare lowest-common-denominator-sense minimum, every time Parsemus releases an update, the manosphere should be blowing it up to get the word out. I've seen this pattern twice now; I get a Parsemus email update, check my RSS feeds, and. . .nothing.

And the few posts that have addressed it? Weaksauce; almost useless. No meaningful analysis; no projection of future consequences; no discussion of political organization to shepherd it past the FDA; no theorizing about grassroots "back alley male abortions", whether here or in foreign countries. . .nothing.

>Also what are we doing that is restricting zenith men? Please explain this.

Thank you for asking. Let's start with the most zenith males of all, baby boys, and how we're blatantly exploiting them from birth: http://bit.ly/1ggCPaT .

You are telling men to "man up." It's just a different type of "man up."

Call it what you like. I'm telling Western men that if they don't want to live in squalor and they don't want their children to live in impoverished squalor, they will have to fight for civilization. That is a fact no more disputable than gravity. Civilization is not a magic given.

If you don't want to fight, if you simply want to live in hedonistic squalor rutting with pigs, that's your call. I'm not going to shame you for it, but I'm not going to think much of you for it either. And if that's enough for you, why would you care what I think anyhow?

You're not going to have better luck with a 'foreign' bride unless you move to where she comes from. I reckon it would take less than a year for such a lady to be 'infected' with the femvirus, assuming she socializes with native fems and bathes in native fem culture.

I respectfully disagree. First time marriage in the USA has a 45% chance of ending in divorce. This is the starry eyed giggly, giggly, "we are so in love" culturally traditional marriage.

The much reviled Russian Mail Order Bride (*reviled by whom and for what reason I can't help but wonder*) has a whopping 20% divorce rate.

The key difference is the attitude going into the marriage. Instead of a shitload of romantic tripe, it's a marriage based on making a domestic partnership work. The commitment is upfront.

This is how marriage was done for the better part of recorded history. It was generally arranged as a dispassionate decision by people who cared for the young hopefuls in question and didn't trust their emotions.

No, Acksiom, that is not what I am doing. And I strongly advise you to not ascribe anything to me, or even declare an opinion of what you think I am doing, if you wish to avoid the spamfile.

If you make any claims about me, you had better be able to prove them conclusively or you will not be able to comment here. I am not the subject and I don't care even a little bit about what you may think of me or what I am doing.

If you want to babble about Vasalgel or whatever, that's up to you. Make inaccurate claims about me and you're gone. Do you understand?

Great comment. When I feel like I'm at odds with my family, my social circle, my friends, society etc... I try to remember Christ saying that if the world hates you, don't worry too much, it hated me first.

Hahahah...Vox applies criticism to us men instead of women and a bunch of guys wig-out. Because priests. GG, Sigyn, and Ann Morgan must be laughing right now. I don't have kids, maybe never will, but I'm not about to cry foul about shaming language from another man. What does a drill sergeant use, exactly? And that's not even a good analogy because we're all here voluntarily. Speaking of "man up..."

"If you aren't interested in saving the West, I have neither use nor respect for you."- Vox

That's an interesting and seemingly valid point, especially for those of us who have benefitted from being raised in the West and who proudly identify with it- to draw life from such without contributing to its continuation, is indeed parasitical. And as important as soliders, priests, and professors might be, they're only important in the context of there actually being a next generation to instruct and protect. Someone has to have kids.

@Doorstop: "Hahahah...Vox applies criticism to us men instead of women and a bunch of guys wig-out. Because priests."

Vox used logic that would categorize priests as parasites and I called him on that. I don't see how that is a 'wig-out' in any realistic way.

"That's an interesting and seemingly valid point, especially for those of us who have benefitted from being raised in the West and who proudly identify with it- to draw life from such without contributing to its continuation, is indeed parasitical. And as important as soliders, priests, and professors might be, they're only important in the context of there actually being a next generation to instruct and protect. Someone has to have kids."

Having kids is not the only way to "contribute" to society. Raising and rearing a family of quality is a great way to contribute but certainly not the only way. Being productive in the workforce, providing charitable contributions, being a conscientious neighbor, spreading the gospel are all great ways to contribute to society and are by no means exhaustive.

Those who do not have children and choose to go their own way instead are NOT saying nobody should have children. Just that they themselves are opting out.

I guess if we take Vox's thoughts to their logical conclusion, even Jesus Christ himself would be a parasite. After all, he did not sire children. I guess his contribution to the world should be utterly ignored and derided since the only way one can not be a parasite according to Vox, is through reproduction.

That was not to read conflict, but community, please explain that, how and what are the "communities' imperatives" and how are they making anything cheaper for us? If you equate feminism or feminine supremacy to the "communities' imperatives" then that is clearly not the case as Feminism is a very expensive program.

As far a Vasalgel what can be done to get FDA approval? Here is the forum, inform us. Maybe you could do a vasalgel blog, More than likely plenty of these sites would link to you. IMHO society would be better off with 0 chemical birth control methods but if Women can have it men should as well. What do we keep hearing, EQUALITY!

Maybe there is misunderstanding because doesn't zenith mean top? So your post sounded like the zenith men were, George Clooney, Russel Brand types, not babies. Can you further explain this?

Vox used logic that would categorize priests as parasites and I called him on that. I don't see how that is a 'wig-out' in any realistic way.

Priests have a different purpose. A bachelor is a parasite; a commensalist parasite if he doesn't actually cause a net loss to society, but a parasite nonetheless. The role of priests was to provide sacraments to people for the afterlife (soul food in the truer sense) and to teach them religion. There's a reason they were addressed as "Father".

Women, by nature, follow the crowd; a man cannot restrain his wife from the destructive aspects of her short-sighted, impulsive, emotion-driven conduct without strong support from society. If society condones the postponement or elimination of child-bearing, motherhood and grandmother-hood, and women spend their entire life attracting men and signaling reproductive availability, there is little a man can do. Like a teenager at a high school dance, they believe they can move from one partner to the next, and don't mature into care-giving wives, mothers and grandmothers. Men (those who work hard and make sacrifices to provide for their families) lose the care they need when they're sick or discouraged; children and grandchildren likewise. Whether women recognize this loss or not, they will continue to follow the crowd until it changes direction. If MGTOW is an attempt by some men to lead the crowd in a better direction, then I'd like to know a better solution.

Ah, the ol' White Feather approach. I imagine if cowardice was the intended concept, then the word 'coward' would have been used instead of the word 'parasite,' but we don't know.

It is interesting, however, that bachelors would be singled out in this way, while the hordes popping out babies left and right would be unremarked upon, or implicitly celebrated for their contributions.

In any event, if they are cowards, what exactly are they afraid of? Ascribing cowardice to single men is an inadequate line of attack.

I can imagine there are plenty of single men, who are more masculine and more driven, with a higher libido, higher Testosterone levels, and more options, who prefer to remain single. Better that these men remain single than get married and cheat on their wives, one would think. Similarly, I would think that for the masses of beta schlubs (and lesser males), whose lower libido, lower testosterone, and fewer options might make marriage the default arrangement. Worth pondering, at least.

Vox used logic that would categorize priests as parasites and I called him on that. I don't see how that is a 'wig-out' in any realistic way.

Interesting. If those who took orders and hied themselves to monasteries chose instead to fight the barbarians with arms or reproduction, would western Rome have collapsed? If so, and if the Roman collapse was inevitable, isn't it better that they remained secluded in order to preserve documents and remnants of civilization that could later be revived?

Those who do not have children and choose to go their own way instead are NOT saying nobody should have children. Just that they themselves are opting out.

Indeed. And I know many (if not the majority) in my group of friends who are happily married with kids, and no divorces (yet) after between 5-10 years. I can see from the outside what a successful marriage looks like, what kind of work it requires, and what toll it can take. I'm happy for them, and sometimes sad for myself, but I treat it as I would treat skydiving: looks fun, could be dangerous, they seem to enjoy it, but it's not for me.

I think I would be happier as a foster or adoptive parent, but I don't see that happening, ever.

It's question that tends to get lost once the Game begins. Most join the game because they are most assuredly not natural Alphas. Usually the proto player is a poor bastard with oneitis who is hoping to learn the magic words that will deliver that one special girl or like me had the final scene from Last American Virgin playout before his eyes.

So you learn the Game and after the first few successful pickups your paradigm shifts without a clutch and you've swallowed the Red Pill. You know, you can't go back. Fine, it's good that you've heard the lie.

But what is the point of being an Alpha?

Hint One: It isn't pussy.

Hint Two: We developed as a species to live in troops of fifty to one hundred fifty. We were never supposed to operate in groups larger than that. What did that troop need from an Alpha Male?

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Plain as day. If men are not fornicating than being single is 100% endorsed by God. No arguments.

When one side has considerably more capability of correct reasoning than the other, it gets very tedious very fast.

You said: "but, but, I have the RIGHT to go my own way."

I said: "Fine".

What is there to discuss? You're a useless parasite by choice. You're not interested in the objectives of this blog, so you have nothing constructive to offer us concerning them.

If you're going your own way, we're not going to stop you. So, why are you still here?

I'll tell you why. Going your own way isn't enough for you. You seek the respect and approval of other men, as most men do. You want to belong, as most men do. But you'll never get it from me if you're determined to be useless.

You're going to serve God as a priest, if you're going to preserve knowledge, hey, that's great. That's fighting for civilization; there is more to it than mere reproduction although reproduction is an absolute necessity. But you didn't just say you didn't wish to marry and reproduce, you said you weren't interested in fighting for Western civilization.

I have no intention of being a priest. In fact, I cannot have a leadership position within a church (divorce).

I largely describe myself as MGTOW, but I can't actually go full-MGTOW. I'm not sure I would, even without my set of circumstances.

I'm raising children from my divorce. So, I have an interest in the future because I have to provide for my children's future.

But I don't kid myself that teams of men and women could work to improve the West, only to see it ripped apart in a matter of hours by popular fiat. I focus on what is truly permanent and unchanging. God.

So, I come to sites, like this one, to hear other viewpoints that I won't hear in my normal circles because too few give a damn as long as the NFL keeps playing, beer flows, and there is pr0n. I have two-three guys I can discuss weighty topics with and none track topics that I see on this site and VP.

>No one said they did. If men want to be useless, harmless, parasitical,>evolutionary dead-ends, that's perfectly fine with me. Because, >obviously, they're useless anyhow. They'll not-breed themselves> out of existence soon enough.

Did Vox actually write these words? A few thoughts...

1. If you are trying to shame anyone I suggest you go watch Mark Driscoll. He does it much better although I had to stop as I had this insane desire to go MGTOW every time I watched him.

2. You are taking the very small percentage of men who go MGTOW way too seriously, I assure you the larger percentage of men will still marry and buy houses that their wives and her future lovers will enjoy.

3. Young men of a lower sexual and economic rank have little choice no matter how much game they have. Young women today have little interest in marriage until she is ready to hit the wall, those men will have to wait, period. No amount of verbiage is going to change that. The only thing that will change that is when women realize men will not marry them when they are older (of course they know better than that).

4. It is interesting that you take a video from Heartiste and the conclusion you draw is so different. As you know, he staunchly advises men NOT to get married (admittedly he doesn't like MGTOWs either).

5. There comes a point when one realizes that Rome is so corrupt that she is going to topple, the momentum is too fast, and there is no point in worshipping at her alter anymore.

6. Rome fell and for many, life, as they knew it, was over. This makes no difference to God, it's just time to clear away the dross and build something new.

2. You are taking the very small percentage of men who go MGTOW way too seriously, I assure you the larger percentage of men will still marry and buy houses that their wives and her future lovers will enjoy.

That's like taking faggotry way too seriously. MGTOW is actually catching on in the general population. In case you've missed it, marriage rates are at an all-time low and still tanking.

3. Young men of a lower sexual and economic rank have little choice no matter how much game they have. Young women today have little interest in marriage until she is ready to hit the wall, those men will have to wait, period. No amount of verbiage is going to change that. The only thing that will change that is when women realize men will not marry them when they are older (of course they know better than that).

Wrong again. Young women are actually more likely to want to get married than they were twenty, or even ten, years ago. It's young men who no longer want to.

4. It is interesting that you take a video from Heartiste and the conclusion you draw is so different. As you know, he staunchly advises men NOT to get married (admittedly he doesn't like MGTOWs either).

He does no such thing. He does, however, advise men not to get married unless they have a decent amount of ALPHA backbone.

5. There comes a point when one realizes that Rome is so corrupt that she is going to topple, the momentum is too fast, and there is no point in worshipping at her alter anymore.

6. Rome fell and for many, life, as they knew it, was over. This makes no difference to God, it's just time to clear away the dross and build something new.

If whatever new is not Christian, it will be far inferior. If it doesn't involve Europeans, same thing. Bottom line is, either European civilization will come through somehow, or humanity is headed for a long, cold millennia-long dark age until another high-IQ Christian race arises from the ashes.

I'm not sure that shaming language is going to work with mgtows as it's become one of the things that they recognize pretty quickly. To me saying mgtows don't matter is a pretty traditionalist way of looking at things. It seems to basically saying regardless of your own personal feelings as a man shut up and do it anyway, your personal feelings don't matter. To me, looking at a marriage and women and deciding that it's not going to work and staying out of it seems far more mature than just buckling to pressure and getting married and having children because of whatever reason is used to apply that pressure.

I think that it sets up a useless binary to say that if you're not producing offspring your automatically a parasite loser who isn't contributing to society. By that rational the Wright brothers who never married and didn't have children either shouldn't exist or they're still losers even though they were the first to fly.

MGTOWs really don't matter when it comes to saving the West. They have no interest in it. Why do they care if VD is simply pointing out the truth? They can go on with whatever it is they do, while folks like me are doing our best to save/rebuild what we feel is important.

>MGTOW is actually catching on in the general population. In case you've missed it, >marriage rates are at an all-time low and still tanking.

I would put the blame on both sexes for that, but if you want to blame men, so be it.

>Young women are actually more likely to want to get married than they were twenty, >or even ten, years ago. It's young men who no longer want to.

I'll concede this point, you are right that young women do want to get married the bigger problem is they have a bad habit of wanting to get unmarried a few years later. But of course it has been argued that is all mens fault as well.

>He does no such thing.

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/dont-get-married/

>If it doesn't involve Europeans, same thing. Bottom line is, either European civilization will >come through somehow, or humanity is headed for a long, cold millennia-long dark age >until another high-IQ Christian race arises from the ashes.

All very true. I can just imagine how the Roman Christian felt as he watched those filthy barbarian Germans sack his City. Handing over civilization to those dirty Europeans was no picnic I can tell you. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish for the fall of Europe, for that matter sometimes I would have liked to see Rome thrive, would there still have been a reformation? I think so. I blame no one for wanting to fight to restore Europe, I don't want to see Europe die, but I don't fear it either. Christianity is spreading like wildfire throughout Africa, China, and yes even the Middle East which is why the Muslims are slaughtering them. The only place where Christianity seems to be dead is well, Europe.

The point is most bachelors are low in the civilizational hierarchy. As is often said, the family is the source of civilization, the basic cell of society. Priests are integral to the community they work with. Monks either have their own marginal communities or live as hermits. But bachelors aren't typically integrated into families and usually don't have stable communities if their own, and usually don't exile themselves of their own free will. They might contribute some of the brute labor necessary to keep the civilization running, but the civilization itself is, essentially, the family.

The pathway to restoration lies with the children, for sure. It is that we must now do a couple things:

#1 train up our own children, sons and daughters, in a way which supports civilization. Their minds must be right. Good wives are not born, but rather trained by their fathers to be trained by their husbands to be good wives.

#2 Nothing will change with the direction of civilization until the Christians leave off their idolatry and begin to submit themselves to the laws of God as a moral code. We must see the righteousness of punishing adultery with death, the rape of a virgin with marriage to the rapist, and no protection for the rape of a non-married fornicating woman. We must see the wisdom of putting fathers in charge of daughter's choice in marriage. Of course there are plenty of other Biblical law issues, but these are the ones concerning this Game subject.

This is the hard row to hoe and most Christian men will make all the usual excuses concerning Biblical law. But in the end, following any other laws is just following some man's or some group of men's ideas. Consensus is not truth, nor does it purify law. Law is not the salvation, but it is what righteous, spiritual men care about.

Here's a place to start. Many churches in the U.S. are actively campaigning for immigration reform which, they assure us, is not amnesty. There are government dollars at stake for para-church organization in transporting and taking care of these kids until "they can be reunited with their parents." I spent last weekend researching and putting together a well-constructed letter that is being run up the organization as I write. Nazarene, AG, Catholic, and others are involved. My pastor was completely ignorant on the subject. The standard path has been a high-level foreign-born pastor now in the U.S. leading a large Hispanic congregation that beats the mantra of compassion without any consideration for the long-term effects. Want to save Western civilization? Here's a hot-spot worth flaming up.

It would see to me that only a very select few could non parasites. Unless you are a natural alpha you are not going to be able to attract a quality woman as these are extremely rare if not extinct in many places in the U.S. After you do this you must then raise children and be alpha enough to hold the family together against the forces of society who constantly attempt to tear it apart. If your family does get torn apart you are then providing material aid and comfort to the enemy via resource transfer. If you refuse to do this you are sent to prison where you will be forced to provide material aid and comfort to the enemy via forced labor for big business. If you abandon the country to start life elsewhere you are a parasite with no value to western civilization.

The only possible way out I can see given the strictures I am interpreting is some sort of murder / suicide final retaliation against whatever small forces directly affected you last. If every man sent to the family courts did this the problem would be over in a week but that sort of consensus doesn't exist. So I guess my question is if you aren't a natural alpha - how not to be a parasite successfully?

Its clear that many readers here couldnt hold on to a teenage virgin bride for long let alone a slut. Its no wonder youre so offended. A man who butches and moans about his wifes slutty youth understands very little about his role as a husband and father. Her job is to raise children. Not make you feel good about yourself and experience pure high school puppy love. This is reality. Not a romcom.

theres a reason polygamy is seen as a natural and preferable alternative.

>how and what are the "communities' imperatives" and how are they making anything cheaper for us?

Why did you make it a plural? Community imperative, singular case.

The Community Imperative is reproduction at or above the replacement rate; the constant resupply of younger generations. A large part of what the manosphere characterizes as the "Feminine Imperative" is the female side of that Community Imperative, and that Community Imperative is why both genders let both women and men get away with certain behaviors.

The Community Imperative itself doesn't directly make things cheaper; the Community Imperative is one among several drivers of that. It's probably the primary one behind it, though: specifically, the exploitation of males per se, which is accomplished by training everybody, males included, to devalue and depersonalize males in general so that they'll accept less recompense for risking their well-being, safety, health, and lives in the dirtiest, most dangerous, deadliest occupations.

That's what makes things cheaper; that willing self-sacrificial exchange of male well-being, safety, health, and life in exchange for less costly resources, infrastructure, manufacturing, defense, and so on for everybody. We could reduce the work-related injury, disability, and death rates in the 1st world to a fraction of their current heights just by paying a little more for certain goods and services. And I'm pretty sure it would be far less of an increase than the premiums we're paying now for "climate change amelioration" and "sustainable energy" and so forth and so on.

Vox isn't the only one around here playing a long game with a stacked deck against self-blinkered competitors. I throw these little challenges out partly because I enjoy counting coup on the rest of you so much, but much more as a testing metric for the predictive part of this model; to measure how far we've progressed along the technology curve as industrialization slowly catches up to the higher-hanging fruit of men's traditional responsibilities.

As that reduces the Community Imperative pressure to devalue and depersonalize men due to decreasing returns on the behavior, MGTOW, or more accurately, Male Liberation, increases, and likewise, so does the willingness of people to at least acknowledge the existence of the model at all.

To answer Guitar Man's immature question from earlier: it's applicable to this particular post because who are going to be the majority front-line throw-their-lives-away conscripts and recruits in the approaching hard conflict for sovereignty? The excess males; the surplus young men, just like always.

The bachelors.

Same as it ever was.

And thus their devaluation and depersonalization throughout these comments. It's mental battlespace preparation for how you'll be throwing them into the upcoming meatgrinder.

You're laying the mental and emotional foundations now to justify your far greater oppression and sacrifice of them later.

>If you equate feminism or feminine supremacy to the "communities' imperatives"

I'll concede this point, you are right that young women do want to get married the bigger problem is they have a bad habit of wanting to get unmarried a few years later. But of course it has been argued that is all mens fault as well.

The epidemic of pansy BETAs and loathsome male feminists is definitely to blame. But men are proactive, and women are reactive. Things won't get better until men decide they will. At the moment, they're going along with feminism for the most part.

>He does no such thing.

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/dont-get-married/

You obviously didn't read the article. He blames their beta-provider pedestalization behavior for the divorce epidemic, not marriage per se.

All very true. I can just imagine how the Roman Christian felt as he watched those filthy barbarian Germans sack his City. Handing over civilization to those dirty Europeans was no picnic I can tell you. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish for the fall of Europe, for that matter sometimes I would have liked to see Rome thrive, would there still have been a reformation? I think so. I blame no one for wanting to fight to restore Europe, I don't want to see Europe die, but I don't fear it either. Christianity is spreading like wildfire throughout Africa, China, and yes even the Middle East which is why the Muslims are slaughtering them. The only place where Christianity seems to be dead is well, Europe.

You're very naive. Most of the "Christianity" that's spreading "like wildfire" is that stupid Pentecostal BS and other forms of liberal Protestantism, not traditional Christianity, which is on life support. And I fail to see how Christianity can spread in the Middle East when it has been pretty much cleansed entirely from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Turkey, and in the process of being cleansed from Iraq as we speak. It would be from Syria too were it not for Assad.

All very true. I can just imagine how the Roman Christian felt as he watched those filthy barbarian Germans sack his City. Handing over civilization to those dirty Europeans was no picnic I can tell you.

If you really think the black-Muslim plague will resuscitate civilization like the "barbarian" Germans did, I have a bridge to sell you. Don't be an equalist idiot.

Vox's point may be solid in theory, but in practice it just doesn't work. You can't marry a woman who doesn't want to get married -- and most educated white women under 28 don't want to get married. You can't realistically marry a woman over 35 unless she's extremely hot or you yourself are 50+. No group of men in the history of the world has been asked to marry 35+ year-old women. The cost/benefit is just far too extreme (5 years of good sex followed by 40 years of being with an old woman).

So, really, there is no way to save western civilization unless women want to save it. And that means young women marrying young men. But why should they do that? What's in it for them unless they can snag a top-20% male? The cost/benefit is not attractive for them.

The future we're heading toward is really a return to the past, in which the entire country acts as one big tribe: The men generate wealth and give it to the government, which then distributes it to women and children. Some 30% of kids are still raised in nuclear families but for the rest the government is the de facto daddy (though really all men are financial daddies since they all pay for the kids' upkeep via taxes).

Vox I'm afraid you are fighting both math and the forces of history on this one. Unless you can convince 22-year-old hotties to get married, the notion of putting the saving of western civilization on the backs of men just doesn't hold up.

Let me preface this by saying that I am a regular reader who respects your work a lot.

You said: "Look, I have no problem at all with men running off to Thailand and marrying whatever they like and doing whatever they like. I would even encourage it, because they're obviously not going to be any use in reclaiming and rebuilding Western Civ."

This is an interesting statement coming from someone who has significant non-white ancestry and has in fact moved with his family outside of the U.S. (though still in the West, I suppose)

I myself, being as far as I know of 100% Western European stock with IQ and pedigree befitting of Dread Ilk, went to a "civilized" part of East Asia (with IQ above the white average) where I found a quality girl who I hope may be less likely to divorce rape me than the average Ameriskank and have had a couple of sons who will be big and strong. I believe in saving civilization and hope my kids can be proud of the civilized cultures of both their parents.

Where do mixed people fit in the largely segregated future world you envision? Are the only people allowed in the white areas those who can "pass" for white like yourself? Do part East Asians have a better chance at inclusion than part Blacks because civilization (and what of Hispanics and Native Americans)?

I'm not trying to pin you down to specifics (e.g., max percentage non-white blood permitted) here, but is this (or could this be) my kids' fight? Or should I just encourage them to improve the quality of the gene pool in their birth country as America goes down the tubes?

Aksiom, cute name. You think you're far, far smarter than you really are. It is painfully obvios in your writing, which is jarring, discordant, and heavy-laden with pedantic techno-jargon. You're trying too hard. And no one is around, or has ever been around, to tell you. I will.

You need to get out some. Though. I can't imagine anyone surviving more than ten minutes of hearing you speak like that before they attempt suicide right there at the bar.

The great error in some of the comments, of course, is conflating Christianity with Western Civilization. Our civilization existed long before Christianity came on the scene, and, if we get this right, it will survive long after Christianity has departed the scene for other pastures in Africa.

Hahahah...Vox applies criticism to us men instead of women and a bunch of guys wig-out.

"Guys" may not be the right word. "Gammas" is more appropriate. And sackless Gammas respond to criticism pretty much just like women do. Shrieking and hyperventilating "how dare you shame me!" Let me know when you've scheduled the MGTOW-walk. Maybe you can post photos of you holding placards with ironic sayings on them.

Just classic. Corvinus is right: MGTOW is a Gamma/Omega cowardly way out.

The problem with MGTOW isn't that they're bachelors, it's that they're afraid of women, afraid of society, afraid of failure. They're walking away from the race because the finish line is sooooo far away, and someone else might cross it first. But they'll bitch and moan about not getting invited to the party after the race is over.

As to shaming anyone, I'd call it "ridicule" instead of "shame" but go with either word if you like. The point isn't to convince any of these sackless wonders to change their minds, but rather to point out to anyone else watching that MGTOW is not a choice that will earn you respect among men.

I have great sympathy for a man who struggles to live a decent and rewarding life in the screwed up society we've been handed. I have contempt for a man who refuses to accept risk, who turns away from civilization because he's scared shitless of a wife he hasn't even met. That is just pathetic.

Yeah, I know, I'm not winning any friends among the Gammas. I'll get over it.

All of you bitching about Vox calling you out, understand, he's the nice one in this matter.

The great error in some of the comments, of course, is conflating Christianity with Western Civilization. Our civilization existed long before Christianity came on the scene, and, if we get this right, it will survive long after Christianity has departed the scene for other pastures in Africa.

Yeah, it's funny how our civilization always collapses when it's not Christian, like pagan Rome did, and like atheist Europe is doing now.

"The future we're heading toward is really a return to the past, in which the entire country acts as one big tribe: The men generate wealth and give it to the government, which then distributes it to women and children. Some 30% of kids are still raised in nuclear families but for the rest the government is the de facto daddy (though really all men are financial daddies since they all pay for the kids' upkeep via taxes)."

Kgaard,

That's the best and most concise analysis of the future I've read in a long, long time. What you describe is the way we've been heading for decades and there is zero incentive on women's, men's or the government's part to change this shift. Women are quite happy to depend on the government if the father doesn't meet her expectations. Men are quite happy too, as higher taxes are a lot better than complete financial annihilation through divorce. Men have a much tougher time with divorce as well. Governments love higher taxes.

Fewer and fewer women want to get married while they're young. What incentives do they have to marry young? When women decide they want to marry, they want to top 20% of men. Fewer and fewer men want to get married when they're young. What incentives do they have to marry young? When men decide to get married, they want the top 20% of women. No one has the power to change this. God's not going to intervene. If anything, this was all predicted by God and he's likely laughing at us.

Most everyone now knows the devastating consequences that divorce can have on their lives. The result of divorce is often severe psychological, emotional, legal, physical and financial destruction, yet the divorce rate remains high. The reasons for divorce don't matter. The fact that divorce remains incredibly common despite the devastating consequences is what matters. No efforts to change these outcomes has or will have any effect. Only a dictatorial government has the power to force changes in human behavior. God’s going to let everyone hit rock bottom.

Feminism taught women that marriage was slavery. Men have been taught that marriage is a death trap. There's no stopping the decline as both sides are in many ways correct. Women were at one point in time abused in marriage and through divorce, left destitute. They're not going back to those times. For the past several decades, the shoe has been on the other foot and it's mostly men that have been destroyed through divorce. Men are opting out in ever growing numbers.

The liberal/feminist model of marriage has and will continue to fail. Most men aren’t going to allow themselves to be ruled by women in relationships. Women think they want to have power over men in relationships, but have no respect for and are repulsed by the men that allow themselves to be ruled by women in relationships. Both sides under the liberal/feminist model are far more promiscuous, more likely to commit adultery and more likely to indulge in infidelity – even in the face of STDs. They playing field for the worst in human behavior is level under the feminist/liberal model.

To sustain the population, prop up the GDP through population growth and to save the entitlement programs, the only solution from the government’s standpoint is mass welfare and tax breaks for single mothers and/or mass immigration. As xenophobia is common everywhere, the preferred method is going to be the mass acceptance of single motherhood and a massive increase in services for single mothers (through higher taxes and/or the diversion of tax funds). This model has been around for a while and will become the rule unless massive shifts in social consciousness take place (doubtful).

As societal collapse is typically needed to end the breakdown of the societal values and constructs that form healthy societies, I believe Kgaard’s analysis to be highly accurate.

Where do mixed people fit in the largely segregated future world you envision? Are the only people allowed in the white areas those who can "pass" for white like yourself?

They will have to choose, to the extent they are permitted a choice. And yes, I expect the only people likely to be allowed in the white areas will be those who look it. Although it is not impossible that there will be a multiracial power, a sort of Brazil writ large.

You might not like what this signifies for your children, but then, you chose that fate for them when you elected to align yourself with the Asians rather than the Europeans. I'm not condemning nor even criticism your choice, merely pointing out that actions have consequences, whether we take them into account or not.

Now, I could be wrong. But I don't think this short period of global desegregation is likely to last long or end peacefully.

Jack Amok shametalks like a feminist or a feminist "conservative" stooge like Bill Bennett, and is just as easily /plonked.

I have no fear of women, but I do have a healthy wariness about femculture and its enthralled jackbooted thugs. I've looked at the risk/reward analysis, and the percentages, and decided that the reward to me is way inferior to the risk to me. Taking stupid risks is something stupid people do.

A man marrying and raising kids is obviously the most noble path most men can choose, today.

But who wants it? We millenials, for instance, grew up watching our parents fighting, watching the friend's of our parents bickering, watching fat wives threaten divorce and ball-bust their husbands.

It takes less skill and game, and has less risk, to just go from woman to woman, and never marry. So who wants to put everything on the line and gamble in marriage while now having to work work work? Blackjack has less risk!

Oh, and gotta love one of the early comments from Jack, "The future ain't rosy as far as prosperity is concerned. We're not going to be able to afford a bunch of layabouts. And those of us raising daughters aren't going to tolerate a bunch of lotharios either. MGTOW and PUA might work for the moment, but they're poor long-term choices. "

Hahah, it's not about what married men will "tolerate." Most fathers/husbands have utterly no control over their wives or daughters, you're deluding yourself if you think single men care about what you will "tolerate" as you work 40+ hours a week and work hard to try to game your wife well enough she isn't threatening divorce.

archer,If a man goes into marriage with his eyes open, properly educated and trained to lead, and does his best - it can be an extremely rewarding to have and raise children. I didn't really "want" children, but I also didn't know what it would be like being a dad. I've grown to really, really love the role.

I think what stung the most was the betrayal of my spouse and the realization that I was sold a lie. Had I been properly educated and prepared (as best as can be expected) and things fell apart, I could have much more easily dealt with rebuilding my life. I think the destruction is more widespread because the spouse fighting for the marriage ends up over-extended when the rug is finally pulled out from underneath.

I'm not sure I would have ever gone full MGTOW. I still date and don't completely rule out marriage again, though this time I will ensure it's to a Godly woman (among other provisions).

Going forward, if I marry again, I have a full understanding of what's expected of me. If I fulfill my duties and she flakes...that's on her. I still hold regrets about my marriage because I was full Churchian and I wonder if things would've failed had I been exposed to this body of work earlier.

I wouldn't completely rule out marriage if I were young. I wouldn't take the leap until you have truly internalized Biblical manhood and can readily spot and have no fear of combating evangelical feminism.

That said, marry to glorify God. Not because civilization may depend on it. And if you choose not to marry, then find other ways to glorify God. What better way to contribute to civilization is there?

Oh, no doubt it can be. Even to the ancients, it was. Odysseus, for example, didn't want glory in war, or adventure. He got dragged along to the Trojan War, then he spent ages risking his life to try to get home to his family.

Though it's not about manhood, or being a good Christian, or being willing to debate and "combat" feminism, in marriage. It's game. My dad was 'adopted' (unofficially) when he was a kid, had enough skill with women in his youth he received offers from women to put him through college. Makes 95k a year now with an Associates degree. (that's pretty decent in the Atlanta suburbs.) And Christian, the sort of guy who will debate, or if he hears BS during a sermon, will be fine getting up and walking out.

My mom's favorite arguing tactic is still threatening divorce. One of the first times I remember was around age 13, 14, when my older brother was buying his first vehicle, they were looking an ugly truck my brother liked (it was reliable and as my brother proved later, had good crash test ratings), and my mom was objecting, dad told her to be quiet and go sit in the car. She came into my room later that night asking if I'd go with her or my dad if they divorced. Another golden example would be 1-2 years ago when my dad started reading about how New Testament Christians met in small groups in homes, instead of meeting in mega-churches and just listening to the same pastor, and started looking for small christian home groups he could attend, because he thought mega-church lead to most christians not being involved or growing. My mom sat him down and tearfully told him he was going down a path she couldn't follow.

I think most of us growing up thinking romance and finding a wife is a great idea. Then we learn through experience/seeing others that *legally* marrying, today, is about as smart as giving a 12 year old a loaded Beretta. Though I admit, if your state doesn't allow common law marriage, then "spiritually" marrying but not legally marrying might be a smart option.

I've witnessed the below guys story play itself out in several of my male relatives and friends lives. I'm betting this is the story of many tens of millions of men's lives. Had I not been made aware by online, male oriented communities, this could very, very easily have been my life story. The below post was copied from another web site:

"It cost me $25 one time, and $30 the second to get married. The divorces were the pricey part. I'm still paying for the first one fifteen years later, and the second cost me over $10k, 12 days in jail for something I didn't do, and my first conviction for anything.

So far the first one has cost me $187,200 just for child support, and I have until May then its done. The lawyers, travel costs, credit destruction, foreclosure, and losing my security clearance in the military were damn expensive too. That amounts to more than half, nearly 3/4 of what I earned over the last fifteen years.

Interesting discussion. I admire church goers trying to preserve marital and familial integrity. But there are serious flaws to Vox's implied call to action:

Vox, it appears you advocate "fighting" for western civilization by entering an arrangement that has been thoroughly gutted and supplanted with a feminist inspired substitute bearing the same name (marriage 2.0). It's like saying its a mans duty to defend his country even if it means joining the occupiers battalion.

I speculate that the primary reason you advocate such is that marriage remains a christian/biblical pillar therefore you must "keep it in play" no matter how perverse it has become. I'm not so sure it's western civilization you aim to preserve but perhaps the christian tradition at all costs.

Men who reject fem-marriage altogether IMO actually inspire more calls for change then those who subject themselves to it - whether by ignorance, naivety, Christian obligation, etc. There have been many MSM and blogosphere articles noting the plummeting marriage rate and the trend of delayed marriage. This quite logically causes people to ask why? One of the most common reasons offered is the raw deal marriage presents to men.

So your attempt to shame men who do not participate in marriage, and as a result have no opportunity to procreate is misplaced. They are not parasitic, they are responding the incentive mix presented. Their rejection is doing more to promote change then simply surrendering to marriage 2.0.

Jack,It's not gamma to call out someone using cheap tactics. It's holding the person to the same standard you hold others to.

Gamma is about acting like a woman. The strategy you come up with to deal with a problem is to hide from it and bitch about it while waiting for someone else to solve the problem. Complaining about being shamed is a female thing. You're complaining about being shamed. You need your own slut-walk.

Why are you so obsessed with being well thought of by people you have never met?

I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think of me. But I know you and your type are big on projection, so you assume that I do, which is why I joked that I'm not wining any friends among the gammas. Once again, you react like a woman.

Folks, you don't marry women who are feminists. But civilizations thrive where there's a strong emphasis on the family. It is of simple fact that the rebuilding of western civilization will not come through MGTOW gammas. It will come primarily through families who are not heavily influenced by modern culture, with men who lead, women who follow and support, and children to carry on those traditions and values.

MGTOW is just evidence of a dying despicable culture. You're the effects of this, and really, you're just another part of post modernism.

The traditionalists are strong, and will remain so even when things get worse before they improve.

Look, you guys don't understand, I get that. Nothing I write will help you, so stick around as punching bags if you insist. My words are meant for others, you're just the delivery mechanism. But Speculative Measures made a comment that is a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with the MGTOW thinking.

Vox, it appears you advocate "fighting" for western civilization by entering an arrangement that has been thoroughly gutted and supplanted with a feminist inspired substitute bearing the same name (marriage 2.0).

That's not at all what Vox advocated, but it's completely beyond the thought process of the MGTOW to contemplate doing something outside the path set down for them by others. What saving Western Civilization requires is most certainly not following the path to Hell that progressives and feminists have laid down for society. It requires courage and leadership. It's not "man up and commit to Marriage 2.0", it's "man up and create Marriage 3.0" (which hopefully is a lot closer to Marriage 1.0).

So stop with the wailing about the current situation. Yes, it sucks. The idea is to change it. You can't change it by hiding in the bushes.

I think we all can agree that legal marriage today is foolish as paying $800 for a used glock 22.

So how come no-one in the manosphere seems to have looked into a "spiritual" wedding, to help the man retain some power in marriage? Exchanging of vows before a Christian pastor/minister, but no legal paperwork involved.

It keeps a man in a better position, like dating, and would probably be much more appealing. In dating, both man and woman can walk away at anytime without punishment--much better than your typical man-is-breadwinner-marriage where a woman has much to gain and the man has everything to lose in divorce. If it was just a "spiritual" marriage, then Biblical morality is satisfied, and the man has much less risk in case of divorce--the woman doesn't stand to be enriched.

Women would hate it, of course, because who wants to give up such power? But if you want to be convinced of it, just attend a family law class. Divorce is financially devastating, especially for male breadwinners. But maybe women will just have to bite the bullet and take it. After all, if they can't trust the man unless they have the threatpoint over him, why should he trust her with that threatpoint?

The strategy you come up with to deal with a problem is to hide from it and bitch about it while waiting for someone else to solve the problem. Complaining about being shamed is a female thing. You're complaining about being shamed. You need your own slut-walk.

Show where I hide from the problem. Proof. Not baseless allegations, like women throw at guys. Show where I hid or am hiding from the problem. There's plenty about my life in this thread.

Show where I complained about being shamed. Not where I point out that a shaming tactic is used, but where I took personal offense to the measure. Again, proof.

I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think of me.

Sure you do. Vox says as much earlier in the thread. All men care what other men think of them.

But I know you and your type are big on projection, so you assume that I do, which is why I joked that I'm not wining any friends among the gammas.

You're not winning friends because you argue like a woman. You offer no proof, only insults and allegations.

Once again, you react like a woman.

I'm asking for proof.

My position is to accept reality as it is, not how I want it to be.My position is "God first, all other things after."My position is to educate men, prepare them for leadership, and allow them to make their own life without shaming them for not fitting the mold a few have decided is best.

So how come no-one in the manosphere seems to have looked into a "spiritual" wedding, to help the man retain some power in marriage? Exchanging of vows before a Christian pastor/minister, but no legal paperwork involved.

Four states have Covenant Marriages. Essentially, strong counseling prior to marriage and a pre-nup that severely restricts the ability to divorce.

Like anything else nowadays, the marriage bond is only as strong as the man and woman want it to be. Nothing can really stop someone in a spiritual marriage or covenant marriage or whatever from going to another state and filing for divorce or simply separating with no intention of reconcilliation.

The lack of a marriage certificate, I think, wouldn't make a bit of difference in family court. Family court operates by the rules the judge decides, it seems. I could still see a husband or wife taking a "spiritual marriage" to court for dissolution and financial compensation. An oral agreement is still a contract in many states.

Vox, it appears you advocate "fighting" for western civilization by entering an arrangement that has been thoroughly gutted and supplanted with a feminist inspired substitute bearing the same name (marriage 2.0).

That's not at all what Vox advocated, but it's completely beyond the thought process of the MGTOW to contemplate doing something outside the path set down for them by others. What saving Western Civilization requires is most certainly not following the path to Hell that progressives and feminists have laid down for society. It requires courage and leadership. It's not "man up and commit to Marriage 2.0", it's "man up and create Marriage 3.0" (which hopefully is a lot closer to Marriage 1.0).

Progtard feminazi "marriage" is a postmodernist institution, and MGTOWs are postmodernist Gammas, so it only makes sense that they don't see any options other than 1) don't marry, and 2) Marriage 2.0.

Like I said earlier, female shaming tactics don't work if the targets (1) aren't ashamed, (2) simply laugh at their assailants, and (3) go on enjoying life.

Heh. There's absolutely no difference between how John Scalzi reacts to Vox shaming him, and how you and other MGTOWs react to shaming. No difference whatsoever.

So how come no-one in the manosphere seems to have looked into a "spiritual" wedding, to help the man retain some power in marriage? Exchanging of vows before a Christian pastor/minister, but no legal paperwork involved.

You must be new; it's been discussed many times on various Christian manosphere sites. For the most part, it's not possible. Most churches won't marry you without a civil marriage license. If yours will, that's great, but if you have children and your wife leaves, you're in the same custody and child support mess either way, and possibly the same alimony and property-division situation if you lived together long enough for your state/judge to think she deserves some of your stuff.

Getting government out of religious marriage is a good goal for the future; but as a way to try to keep the threat of divorce from harming your marriage today, it's not a useful strategy even when it's an option. Its main usefulness might be in judging your prospective bride: if you bring up the idea of a non-civil marriage (even if you can't really do it) and she's amenable, she might be less influenced by the pro-divorce culture than most.

Getting government out of religious marriage is a good goal for the future

I don't think it's possible. Government got into the marriage business when it started doling out welfare in various forms, because benefit eligibility and calculations neccessarily need to address legal partnerships and responsibilities.

As long as there's welfare, the government will be in the business of determining who is and is not married.

So how come no-one in the manosphere seems to have looked into a "spiritual" wedding, to help the man retain some power in marriage? Exchanging of vows before a Christian pastor/minister, but no legal paperwork involved.

You must be new; it's been discussed many times on various Christian manosphere sites. For the most part, it's not possible. Most churches won't marry you without a civil marriage license.

Wrangling over legalities is meaningless. Fixing marriage requires a wholesale philosophical change. If the parties are both postmodern and liberal, it doesn't matter diddly-squat what form the marriage takes, it will still be as precarious as any Marriage 2.0 example.

Heh. There's absolutely no difference between how John Scalzi reacts to Vox shaming him, and how you and other MGTOWs react to shaming. No difference whatsoever.

The lesson you should draw is, "Shaming just isn't very effective against men."

It really isn't. If someone you personally know shames you, then it is effective. Strangers? Guys (NMALT) just don't react to shaming like women do. It's why women like to employ it against other women and fail when trying to get men to "Man up."

What you MGTOW's fail to understand, and maybe this will come as a surprise, is that us "traditionalists" enjoy life. Immensely. We aren't engaged in 2.0 because we run our house. I get it that gamma MGTOWs are incapable of leadership, and that you can't help yourself when you get offended, because you rule on emotion rather than logic.

Anyway, the MGTOWs in this thread are making a rational choice, not an emotional one. You have it exactly backwards. They've weighted and measured and decided, rationally, that the only way to "win" is to not play. Others feel differently. So be it. Just don't be surprised when your life's work is swept away in seconds by popular vote.

You are building on sand, not rock.

Getting worked up over a two minute video, preparing to storm the castle, etc.is reacting emotionally. To arms! To arms! Again, you are getting it exactly backwards.

I have no dog in this fight. I'm not MGTOW and I'm not part of the next big crusade. My mission is bigger. I'm building on rock for my children. I will prepare them for Biblically defined roles.

It was the MGTOWs who came in here ruling on emotion, and completely lacking the comprehension to understand what Vox is gathering at. I get it, others of the Ilk get it. AG MGTOWs, what not, can't see past their own self to understand it.

That's perfectly true. And those who do care to do so have the right to look on those who can't be bothered as worthless parasites. If you aren't interested in saving the West, I have neither use nor respect for you.

And why I should feel sorry for being of no use to you? Seeking willing tools, aren't we?

Somehow, I'm reading this between the lines: If you aren't the part of the solution, you are the part of the problem.

No, I'm a bemused onlooker witnessing a slow-motion trainwreck. May someone else lie prone on the tracks hoping to make the difference.

So let me get this straight, You've entered a legal marriage presumably in the US and are thereby obligated to any and all Family law of your respective state, enforcement of said laws being fully supported by society at large, the police, the school system, you wife's friends and churchianity, but somehow this is NOT marriage 2.0??

LOL, whatever you gotta tell yourself. At the end of the day, whether it's through largely ineffective wife appeasement, or meagerly more effective "gaming your wife" (churchian divorce rates run the same as the rest), you are still have to put on a performance and hope that she won't pull the trigger, nuking the family. So go ahead, do your little tap dance and hope for the best.

Calls to mind the saying - none so enslaved as those who think they are free.

So let me get this straight, You've entered a legal marriage presumably in the US and are thereby obligated to any and all Family law of your respective state, enforcement of said laws being fully supported by society at large, the police, the school system, you wife's friends and churchianity, but somehow this is NOT marriage 2.0??

If both the husband and wife recognize it as a traditional marriage, rather than a postmodernist equal partnership (= Marriage 2.0), then yes.

I said a few posts up: it doesn't matter jackshit what the legal setup of it is. What matters is the philosophy behind it.

I've been following this thread for a while and can appreciate where both sides are coming from.

On the one hand, I identify with the MGTOWs because I believe that modern Western society is unworthy of my blood, sweat, and tears. Why should I invest in a system that overtly hates me, robs me blind, will brainwash my children to reject everything I hold dear, and gives a wife the power to destroy me on a whim? From this perspective it's not a question of avoiding collapse, which seems a fait accompli, but rather of surviving it.

On the other hand, I identify with the urge to have children and at least try to pass along my heritage, which is a noble one. Maybe we truly can come together and fight a Reconquista as Vox suggests.

My conclusion is that both sides have an important role to play. MGTOWs help starve the system, which we all agree is rotten, while those who marry and/or have children help lay the foundation for a new one. I truly hope that the latter camp doesn't wind up merely fueling the current system, since I know that's not the objective. As for myself, I'll have to think harder about what path to take.

The Remnant, at least for me, and others that I've conversed with, we're not trying to save the present culture as we see it. In order to save western civ, the present form of it needs to die. Nihilism and post modernism are not something I'm willing to protect or die for.

Saving Western Civ requires overthrowing Pax Americana. It's a lot easier to do this if the Legions are weakened by an eroded tax base. MGTOW is one of the methods that can be used to erode that tax base.

Again, you MGTOW gammas completely miss my point about the philosophical underpinnings of marriage determining whether it's 1.0 or 2.0.

If you want to get right down to it, the alpha version of Marriage 2.0 came out with the Protestant Reformation, when no-fault divorce was first allowed. The beta test version came in with the influence of John Locke and his social contract theory, which reduced the marriage from a sacrament involving God to a social contract involving equal partners. But it wasn't until the feminasty revolution that the rotten aspects of Marriage 2.0 became readily apparent to everybody. But you don't see anything wrong with classical liberalism, so you decide to say "marriage must die" rather than "maybe classical liberalism must die instead?"

Show where I hide from the problem. Proof. Not baseless allegations...

Are you "going your own way?" As in, refusing to engage in family formation out of fear of divorce or from a belief that there are no, or at least not enough, marriage-worthy women? Are you advocating this position for other men?

If so, you are avoiding the problem rather than attempting to fix it. If not, then you aren't the sort of MGTOW that I'm worried about.

Sure you do. Vox says as much earlier in the thread. All men care what other men think of them.

MGTOWs are postmodernist Gammas, so it only makes sense that they don't see any options other than 1) don't marry, and 2) Marriage 2.0.

Yes, exactly. Gammas think that refusing to run the race is courageous.

And Gammatude is also behind their inability to comprehend your excellent point that "it doesn't matter jackshit what the legal setup of it is. What matters is the philosophy behind it" The idea of being responsible for their own outcome, of having the capacity to influence society, is apparently quite baffling to them. Or perhaps offensive is the better word, since they seem rather incensed by the idea.

Folks, don't be a Gamma. Don't hide from the world, wailing at the gross unfairness of it all. Yes, there is injustice, bad luck, treachery... all manner of evil in the world. I'm no theologian, but I'm pretty sure that if God didn't intend for you to confront the evils of this world, He wouldn't have seen you born. I seem to recall He wasn't happy with Adam for hiding in the bushes a very long time ago. Women were made to hide in the bushes, men were made to go forth and succeed or die trying.

I think a fair amount of you don't get why a lot of guys are opposed to marriage. Here.

I graduated college last year, and my parents urged me to go on to law school. So I researched. Employment rates are terrible currently, there are literally dozens of class action lawsuits against law schools for inflating employment rates, most attorneys seem to say the field is overcrowded, law school gives you a fortune in debt, pay rates are down for lawyers, it's very high stress, and takes three years of your life.

I wasn't scared. But I did go, "Wow, that sounds like a terrible idea. I'm just going to try to find a decent job with my Bachelor's."

That's what quite a few of the men who view marriage as a terrible idea have done. We looked at our parents, older men, coworkers, everything from our own dating experiences to spreadsheet man on the internet and all the men and women chorusing how women don't owe husbands sex, not to mention how divorce is for men and how frequently women do it and saw, "Wow, marriage sounds like a terrible idea. Get an attractive girlfriend and have a good relationship? That seems fine if you meet a sane girl and can game her. Get married? No way, I don't want to end up like those henpecked men who slave away to support an unhappy wife."

Making a choice based on fear is irrational. But face it. Deciding not to marry is the logical, rational bet for a man today when one examines as much as you can.

>I think a fair amount of you don't get why a lot of guys are opposed to marriage

Very well said. I remember about 10 years ago, I met a man who surprised me when asking if I was married. When I told him I wasn't he said "I'm sorry for you, you don't know what you are missing."This surprised me as I was only used to the standard feminine attacks of "you're afraid/omega/beta/loser/man up, etc."The attacks never end. Bad marriage? It's because you are a loser. Your wife left you? You are a loser. Women riding the cock carousel? You are a loser.Sorry girls that won't work.Now you can shame a man to do his duty such as risk his life for his country. But you can't argue that having his body ripped to shreds on a battlefield is somehow good for him. By shaming him you are implicitly admitting that "yes it sucks, but you have to."archerfisher21 is making the same points other single men are making which is:1. Marriage sucks2. I have no duty to endure that.The constant feminine attacks deal with point 2 which admits that point 1 is valid.Do you really think that by calling him a gamma he is going to think "well by golly I better go out and get married right away?" I would suggest that these attacks convince him all the more that he is making the right decision. If he refuses to bow his head from these attacks, he is making the right decision.

Are you "going your own way?" As in, refusing to engage in family formation out of fear of divorce or from a belief that there are no, or at least not enough, marriage-worthy women? Are you advocating this position for other men?

Nope. I have a family.

So, you allegation is incorrect. Retract it.

I take it that you also couldn't find anywhere that I took personal offense to the tactic.

Yes, exactly. Gammas think that refusing to run the race is courageous.

I can't comment on "gammas." I can tell you, from what I've read by MGTOW types, that they don't think marriage is a matter of courage or cowardice. It's a matter of acceptable risk. archer makes a strong comparison to show that it's not a matter of courage, as much as it's risk/reward. I was a paratrooper. To some, that seems like a risky career choice. To me, I knew I would serve with soldiers who are more than likely above an already high standard. I chose a career that included jumping in exchange for serving with more elite troops. There was enough of a payoff for me. If I felt more elite troops were air mobile (101st), I would've gone Air Assault. It's not fear of jumping from planes that would've stopped m from going airborne, though some (like you) would accuse me of it. It was the payoff.

MGTOTW view marriage rationally in risk/reward. They choose to not engage. Now, I outlined how to best mitigate the risk and also strongly endorsed the reward (being a father), but if a guy still decides against it - I have no beef because an equally good argument can be made in their favor.

You couch your position in emotional language, like women do. To you, marriage is an emotional decision - a matter of summoning enough emotion (courage) to do it. It's why you can only view MGTOW deciding against it to be a matter of emotion (courage).

You continue to try to shame, like women and feminist-men do. Here's what I've come to learn about the whole alpha/beta/delta/gamma thing. It's a helpful tool, but far from "settled science." Further, someone in a different category is not less of a man, just a different type of man. I don't view "alpha" as a higher order than a "beta," because they fill different roles in society. Same with the others. I don't want to be another type and view it as undesirable because I am bred/coached/engineered/whatever to fill a role that makes more sense to me, while their lifestyle makes less sense. Not higher. Not lower. Different. Men can imitate other types and have the ability to internalize the change. I just wonder how long lasting it will be or if we will eventually revert to our intended state.

Jack Amok, you engage in the very thing you accuse others. You project. You are reacting emotionally, letting emotion guide your worldview (MGTOW must be acting from emotion, because that's how you view it - emotionally).

Here. Sell it to us. Sell us marriage.So far it's been proclaimed a duty, and that if you're a real man*(tm), you won't be at risk of your wife becoming unhappy and/or divorcing you. That's not a very strong sales job... can anyone sell it further?

Owen, I'm not making an argument, I'm ridiculing a position. I'm expressing contempt for the idea that walking away from a problem is an acceptable solution. Whatever else you may or may not believe, if you are in fact walking away from the problems confronting our civilization, then I have contempt for you.

Perhaps you don't think you are walking away from the problem, or perhaps you think that by walking away you will help solve it (at least one person on this thread has expressed something along those lines). I assume we agree the current situation in society isn't ideal. What is your plan for making it better?

In other words, you're agreeing with the MGTOWs who can't see any philosophical difference between traditional marriage, which is stable, and modern marriage, which is intrinsically unstable. Legally, both are unstable thanks to the divorce industry. But you don't see wives in rural Mormon Utah divorcing their husbands right and left. But both live in a country where no-fault divorce is the law of the land. What gives?

Now, the only thing I will say about you is that you appear to be schizophrenic rather than a consistent MGTOW. But yes, you are advocating for men not to get married and bitching about "shaming" (again: Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket is such a pansy!), and you have otherwise jumped in on the MGTOW side in this argument, family or no family.

Jack,You're done. Until you "man up," retract your baseless allegations, and now apologize, you are nothing more than a troll. You're not arguing, only ridiculing. And, like any troll, all it takes is calling you out for the audience to see that there is no substance to what you say.

Trolls are, without a doubt, gamma. Suck the irony.

Corvinus,But you don't see wives in rural Mormon Utah divorcing their husbands right and left. But both live in a country where no-fault divorce is the law of the land. What gives?

There are a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the female subsultures present in different areas. Women keeping other women in line. You expect those communities to be impervious to the pressing force of feminism? I'm sure many in the 1950s churches thought the same.

---

"Shaming," as in Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, is done by someone the recipient knows well. As I said, shaming by people I know would likely be effective. A random "internet alpha" barking doesn't do anything.

I've made my position clear regarding marriage. Train properly and mitigate the risk, but always be mindful that you live in Marriage/Divorce 2.0. There are rewards to that lifestyle (being a father).

I wasn't trained/didn't train and was blindsided by a frivorce. I have since developed my character and am less apprehensive about re-marriage. Doesn't mean I will. Doesn't mean I won't. It means I will go into any new marriage with eyes wide open and fully aware of the risk involved.

If you decide to live independently (MGTOW), that is a rational decision because as much as a man can train to reduce risk of divorce in marriage, women can still flip on a dime and turn any "internet alpha" into de-pantsed dad in family court. So, I don't "look down" on MGTOW because their lifestyle is perfectly acceptable and respectable.

Train and there are rewards. Decide against and there are rewards. In all things, seek to do God's work.

And I'm not sure you understand "schizophrenic." I think you mean "split personality," which is not a characteristic of schizophrenia.

Well, marriage has been around a lot longer than this civilization, and I'm sure it will be around long after this civilization is gone.

Thing is, this civilization (in its current form) cannot survive for much longer anyway, not when those who build and maintain it are pissed on while those who undermine and destroy it reap the biggest rewards. As Glenn Reynolds so often says, that which cannot continue forever will not continue forever. So the question isn't whether it will fall, but how it will fall (internal reform, outside invasion or total collapse) and what will replace it when it is gone.

Corvinus, are we not men? And we are supposed to operate on logic and reason, not emotion and insults. The fact is, this post and most of the comments have been criticizing men who don't wish to marry on an emotional basis, and have shown a large lack of reason and logic.

Men today are largely understanding what Rollo teaches about marriage--you're not cashing out of the marketplace and hanging up your "gaming" shoes, you are in fact going all in.

The true irony of this post/comments.

What sort of true omega/gamma would a man have to be, that merely being criticized/called a coward would inspire him to make a major life change and risk pretty much everything? It doesn't take any bravery to say, "Ugh, getting married looks like a terrible idea in today's environment."

But it *would* take a gutless coward to go, "Oh no! People are criticizing me, so I should be willing to make a major life commitment and go from 'the most I can lose is a cute girlfriend if my game starts lagging' to 'the most I can lose is 20k on a divorce and half of everything I've earned if my game lags!' "

"Shaming," as in Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, is done by someone the recipient knows well. As I said, shaming by people I know would likely be effective. A random "internet alpha" barking doesn't do anything.

Ludicrous. The recruits didn't know Sgt. Hartman when he first started barking at them either. What matters is the content and how it matches up with reality.

And I'm not sure you understand "schizophrenic." I think you mean "split personality," which is not a characteristic of schizophrenia.

You did describe yourself as a traditional Protestant, so you do show a refusal to entirely reject the principles that led to Marriage 2.0 in the first place. In this sense, you're schizophrenic (otherwise known as "conservative"), because you support the first liberal steps (namely, the Protestant Reformation and its principle of private judgment, and probably Lockeian government as well), but are uncomfortable with the later liberal steps (feminism, Marriage 2.0), even though the later ones flow logically from the earlier ones.

Going back to 1776 or the 1500s won't save us, because if we do, history will just logically send us right back to where we are now a couple hundred years down the road. All these revolutionary ideas which have torn up our Christian civilization must be rejected.

Corvinus, are we not men? And we are supposed to operate on logic and reason, not emotion and insults. The fact is, this post and most of the comments have been criticizing men who don't wish to marry on an emotional basis, and have shown a large lack of reason and logic.

Read my posts again. I have quite a lot of logic and reason in them. As with the idea of "shaming" being a "female" tactic, what you consider "emotional" is a bit off -- I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Ludicrous. The recruits didn't know Sgt. Hartman when he first started barking at them either. What matters is the content and how it matches up with reality.

No, it doesn't. Having been on the receiving end of tirades, such as those, it didn't matter because they yelled about everything. "The private doesn't think he can give a correct answer and if he reverses, the Instructor will beat him more." (Or something to that effect).

If you say something and your father tells you he's ashamed of you - it will sting.If you say the same thing and some guy on the street says he's ashamed of you - you won't give a flying poop.

Regarding your follow-on paragraphs, I'm going to need you to clarify, because (to be honest) it seems really disjointed. I'd like to hear what you hav eto say, but it's not as clear as I think you hoped it would be.

Regarding your follow-on paragraphs, I'm going to need you to clarify, because (to be honest) it seems really disjointed. I'd like to hear what you hav eto say, but it's not as clear as I think you hoped it would be.

First there's the Protestant Reformation which rejected the authority of the Catholic Church and relies on private judgment and reading of the Bible. This leads to Lockeian humanistic government without any role for God; if you reject the Church, you have to rely on man to do what is right. Then, down the line, you have a liberal state which relies on the tacit "consent of the governed" -- once it's established, it can do whatever its representatives vote for. (Think of liberals' defense of Obamacare: because Congress passed it and Obama signed it, it's now law, and equal to a commandment of God, since man is now God.) Then, you have feminism, multiculturalism, gay marriage, and so forth, because all men are created equal, and if you deny people their voting rights, you aren't treating people equally.

Think of the progressive versus conservative culture wars, or Democrat vs. Republican political battles. The progressives / Democrats win because they are philosophically consistent with what came before. The conservatives / Republicans are uncomfortable with the progressives' conclusions, but are constantly on the defensive and fighting a losing rear-guard action because, as they are classical liberals also, they have no coherent alternative.

Corvinus, maybe you can show me the threads that tackle it logically, so I can understand it.

I see "NAWALT" and "Be a real man and you won't have to worry about divorce."

No, it's not NAWALT. It comes from a fundamental difference between traditional marriage, where the woman swears that she accepts her husband as her lord and master -- the very word "husband" means "master" in Old English -- and modern Marriage 2.0, where the man and woman recognize themselves as being in an equal partnership, with equal rights, and the woman only has to give her husband sex if she feels like it, rather than as an obligation.

I hope you can understand how Marriage 2.0, by its very nature of being equalist, leads to frigidity and divorce. It cannot but do otherwise, as the wife is supposed to submit.

Owen, at this point there's nothing for me to retract. You have advocated an MGTOW position, I have ridiculed you for it, and now you claim you don't actually support MGTOW and I owe you an apology.

Just fucking Gamma classic. You're disowning your own position. I also note that you have failed to clarify your stance on the issue as I requested, and you have also failed to elaborate on your plan to make things better.

You want a retraction? Okay, here's how you get one from me.

1) Declare that you do not support MGTOW and apologize for any confusion your earlier posts supporting MGTOW may have caused.

2) Either explain how you think civilization can be salvaged, or state you don't think it can be salvaged (or at least don't know how it can be) if that's what you belief.

You do those two things and I will gladly retract any accusations I have made that you are a contemptible MGTOW enthusiast. If you decline to do either, I see no reason to retract any of my comments.

Oh, and I should note Owen, that I will be off the grid this weekend, so I probably won't see your response until Sunday night at the earliest. So, if you do 1 and 2 above, you can assume that you have my heartfelt retraction of any words I have written that you found hurtful or unkind.

OTOH, if you don't, you can likewise I assume I decline any such retraction.

This thread perfectly demonstrates why "What's in it for me?" is hardly an approach conducive to civilisation. When you permit of philosophical diversity within your society, you reduce that which is had in common until, indeed, all that remains is "What's in it for me?"

GG, Sigyn, and Ann Morgan must be laughing right now.

I do find it amusing that my consort is counted an enemy and a fool to you, when she was one warning you of this, one calling women to higher truth and virtue for the approbation of your God and the restoration of civilisation, one willing to be your ally. She has expended much effort to your aid.

I have told her that you were unworthy, but yet she persists, I know not why. Some sort of charitable impulse, doubtless, but between my efforts and your insistent folly, we shall grind it off of her in due time.

You cannot support MGTOW. MGTOW isn't an organization. MGTOW isn't an institution. MGTOW isn't a philosophy. MGTOW have no leadership nor government funding. Men are going their own way without ever hearing of the acronym. For many men, when they first hear about MGTOW, a light bulb turns on. For many men, MGTOW represents the psychological equivalent of discovering the lightening rod, the life boat or something they’d unconsciously already knew existed within them. MGTOW are a naturally occurring event in response to an often negative and frequently life destroying institution.

MGTOW represents a global realization amongst men that their lives could easily be destroyed through marriage and family. MGTOW represents a global awakening amongst men that they're viewed as disposable. MGTOW are a reaction to long-held, deeply embedded cultural misandry. MGTOW are the logical, inevitable, equal and opposite reaction to the common life destruction men experience as a consequence of marriage 2.0.

You can't argue against MGTOW. You can't debate MGTOW. Why? You can't argue against or debate rationality, the desire for self-preservation and the recognition of reality. Arguing against MGTOW is the equivalent of arguing against breathing.

To negate the phenomenon of MGTOW, one must shame, ridicule, cajole, tax, berate, humiliate, condemn, manipulate and extort them. To defeat MGTOW, their lives must be made so miserable that they choose, under duress, to submit to a life that frequently results in domestic terrorism and emasculation.

"No, it's not NAWALT. It comes from a fundamental difference between traditional marriage, where the woman swears that she accepts her husband as her lord and master -- the very word "husband" means "master" in Old English -- and modern Marriage 2.0, where the man and woman recognize themselves as being in an equal partnership, with equal rights, and the woman only has to give her husband sex if she feels like it, rather than as an obligation."

Yeah... problem is, Marriage 2.0 is the law of the USA. Meaning, it's part of the culture, part of the mindset of women, part of what is preached from church pulpits, and is deliberately women's nuclear option. If you legally wed or you live in a state that recognizes common law marriage (georgia abolished it), you can do your best to game your wife and have strong frame, but it's still there--your game doesn't change the law. No family court is going to say, "Well, they agreed to have a traditional marriage, so we are dividing the assets along the lines of who bought what."

Pray tell, Owen or the feminist style Corvin (only bitches try to label people Elliot Rodgers in an argument) what does legal marriage offer that you can't get without legal marriage? Main difference being that if a man is not legally married, he actually has equal standing with his woman--instead of "I'll take you to the cleaners!" being the woman's threat, she knows that he could leave just as easily as her, and not lose out financially.

MGTOW are the opposite of Elliot. MGTOW find no more value in women than in men. Most MGTOW prefer to limit women's influence in their lives and seek to improve themselves in ways that don't necessarily involve women. Elliot, on the other hand, valued himself in terms of female validation, which is the opposite of the way MGTOW think.

Nevertheless, it is the hope of feminists and white knights everywhere to equate Elliot with MRAs and MGTOW. Why? What else do they have but false parallels and shaming?

Jack Amok, let me spell this out for you. Your attempts at herding MGTOWs with a shame stick to the altar, just because "it's a manly thing to marry" a contemporary feminism-indoctrinated woman, would be as effective as this clip at garnering recruits for the British Army:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucgU2DJlBiw

Jack Amok, let me spell this out for you. Your attempts at herding MGTOWs with a shame stick to the altar, just because "it's a manly thing to marry" a contemporary feminism-indoctrinated woman...

For fuck sake you are ignorant. You don't even realize what I am criticizing MGTOW for. Hint, it's nothing to do with participating in Marriage 2.0 or not. Unless you can get the idea through your skull that MGTOW is not the one and only alternative to being a BetaBux chump for some slut's divorce fantasy, you aren't going to make any productive contributions to this subject.

"No, it's not NAWALT. It comes from a fundamental difference between traditional marriage, where the woman swears that she accepts her husband as her lord and master -- the very word "husband" means "master" in Old English -- and modern Marriage 2.0, where the man and woman recognize themselves as being in an equal partnership, with equal rights, and the woman only has to give her husband sex if she feels like it, rather than as an obligation."

Yeah... problem is, Marriage 2.0 is the law of the USA. Meaning, it's part of the culture, part of the mindset of women, part of what is preached from church pulpits, and is deliberately women's nuclear option. If you legally wed or you live in a state that recognizes common law marriage (georgia abolished it), you can do your best to game your wife and have strong frame, but it's still there--your game doesn't change the law. No family court is going to say, "Well, they agreed to have a traditional marriage, so we are dividing the assets along the lines of who bought what."

Indeed. For whatever reason, certain individuals simply ignore the armed might of the state within the equation.

>Yeah... problem is, Marriage 2.0 is the law of the USA. Meaning, it's part of the culture, part of the >mindset of women, part of what is preached from church pulpits, and is deliberately women's >nuclear option

Oh so true. I have especially noticed this with my girlfriends who were Catholic, Feminism rules in that church. If we are to convince men that they should marry, I think that the best way is to convert Catholic girls to Evangelicals.

If we are to convince men that they should marry, I think that the best way is to convert Catholic girls to Evangelicals.

Wrongo. Again, read my point above about the Protestant Reformation being the source of the BS we're dealing with in the first place.

The Vatican was taken over by the Protestant Reformation with the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, which was basically Anglicanism imported into Rome. The solution is Catholicism that's not associated with the Vatican, which has been compromised by this brain virus known as liberalism, and which we must give up for dead.